preview_artifact

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'without writing files' detail, which confirms non-destructive behavior and clarifies the scope, adding value beyond the annotations. It does not cover potential side effects like hashing costs, but for a read-only preview, that's minor.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose and the non-writing constraint. It's concise and efficient, fitting for a simple tool with one parameter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it does and what it doesn't do. The only missing piece is an explicit note that job_id refers to an in-memory artifact job, but that's inferable from the name. It's comprehensive for its simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It mentions 'content hashes' but not what those are for, and 'job_id' is only defined by its type and length constraints, not its meaning. The description gives no semantic detail about job_id, so it doesn't add much beyond the schema's minimal info. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description is present but doesn't enrich parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('in-memory artifact proposal') and clarifies what it does not do ('without writing files'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like commit_artifact or prepare_artifact. It is clear enough, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_artifact_jobs, but that is less related.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used for previewing before writing, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like prepare_artifact or commit_artifact. It gives a sense of the use case (preview before committing) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.